In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of judicial discipline and consistency, the Supreme Court of India has held that it is improper for a later bench of a High Court to sit in appeal over an interim order passed by an earlier bench. The Court further cautioned High Courts against granting blanket “no-coercive steps” orders without recording reasons, emphasising that such directions must be reasoned and justified.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, while hearing a matter arising from proceedings before the Bombay High Court. The ruling reiterates long-standing constitutional principles governing the functioning of coordinate benches and the exercise of discretionary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The case originated when the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking interim protection against an ongoing investigation by filing a writ petition. A bench of the High Court passed an interim order granting limited protection.
Subsequently, when the matter came up before a different coordinate bench, the later bench effectively reviewed and interfered with the interim order passed earlier. Additionally, the High Court had granted a “no coercive steps” direction without assigning adequate reasons.
Aggrieved by this approach, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, raising important questions about:
- Whether a coordinate bench can revisit or override interim orders passed by another bench of equal strength
- Whether High Courts can routinely grant blanket “no coercive steps” orders without recording reasons
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Coordinate Benches Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Each Other
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the practice of a later bench reviewing or effectively overturning an interim order passed by an earlier coordinate bench.
The Court held that:
A later bench of equal strength cannot sit in appeal over the interim order passed by an earlier bench.
Such conduct, the Court observed, undermines judicial discipline, creates uncertainty, and erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system. If a bench disagrees with an earlier order, the only permissible course is to refer the matter to a larger bench, not to modify or nullify the order indirectly.
This principle is well-established in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and has been repeatedly affirmed to ensure institutional consistency and predictability.
2. Blanket ‘No Coercive Steps’ Orders Are Impermissible Without Reasons
The Supreme Court also took serious note of the growing trend of High Courts granting blanket “no coercive steps” orders in writ petitions challenging investigations, FIRs, or administrative actions.
The Court categorically held that:
- Interim protection cannot be granted as a matter of routine
- Orders restraining investigative agencies must be supported by clear and cogent reasons
- A cryptic or unreasoned “no coercive steps” order is legally unsustainable
The Bench clarified that while constitutional courts do possess wide powers to grant interim relief, such powers must be exercised judiciously, sparingly, and with recorded justification.
Judicial Discipline and Institutional Integrity
The Supreme Court emphasised that judicial discipline is the backbone of the rule of law. Allowing coordinate benches to overrule each other’s interim orders would result in:
- Forum shopping
- Conflicting judicial directions
- Administrative chaos
- Loss of faith in the judiciary
The Court reiterated that coordinate benches are bound by each other’s orders, and any departure must follow established constitutional procedures.
Impact on Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226
This judgment has significant implications for the exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Courts, especially in cases involving:
- Police investigations
- Enforcement actions
- Regulatory proceedings
- Administrative inquiries
The ruling sends a clear message that:
- Interim reliefs must not paralyse investigations at a preliminary stage
- Courts must strike a balance between individual liberty and public interest
- Reasoned orders are mandatory when granting protection against coercive action
Reaffirmation of Supreme Court Precedents
The decision aligns with earlier Supreme Court rulings which have consistently held that:
- Interim orders should not pre-empt final relief
- Courts must avoid granting reliefs that have the effect of staying statutory functions
- Judicial consistency is essential for maintaining constitutional governance
By reiterating these principles, the Supreme Court has strengthened the framework governing interim judicial intervention.
Why This Judgment Is Important
Key Takeaways
- 🔹 Coordinate benches cannot review or override each other’s interim orders
- 🔹 Blanket “no coercive steps” orders without reasons are impermissible
- 🔹 Judicial discipline and consistency must be maintained
- 🔹 Interim reliefs must be reasoned, balanced, and non-routine
This ruling will likely act as a deterrent against casual interim protections and reinforce the need for reasoned judicial decision-making.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Improper for Later Bench to Sit in Appeal Over Interim Order Passed by Earlier Bench serves as a timely reminder that judicial power must be exercised within institutional boundaries. While High Courts possess wide constitutional authority, such power must be exercised with restraint, discipline, and reasoned justification.
By discouraging intra-court appeals through coordinate benches and curbing unreasoned interim protections, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed foundational principles of constitutional adjudication, judicial propriety, and rule of law.
Also Read
Supreme Court Clarifies Criminal Liability, Vicarious Responsibility & Appellate Powers Under NI Act
Paid Online Internship Opportunity at mentblue, Apply by Dec 31!
